2. tech-talk
  3. 176668-82576

Empirical Evidence?...the gap between subjective and objective

As a curious music guy without science background, I stand in awe and gratitude for audio's accomplishments in the last half-century.  From Julian Hirsch's "Stereo Review" to the here and now, Julian's measurements calling the shots vs "trust your ears."  I solidly embrace both camps.  Hard science gets us close, then the loosening of emotions in guiding us home.

Some years ago, I stood on a lower Manhattan Street corner, absorbing the cacophony.  Surrounded by moving objects, sirens, vendors, helicopters, humanity...how can 2 channel replicate this?  A distant friend with the pockets to chase high-end surround, smiles.   More importantly, how could that experience be measured and compared with any degree of accuracy?  "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  Thoughts? 

More Peace, Pin

pinthrift

Showing 2 responses by pinthrift

pinthrift OP
200 posts
 

russ69 ...

I made mention of Julian Hirsh in marking the beginning of the chasm among us.  Your word choice illustrates how that went down.  Other publications included specifications that to this day, prove useful for many.  

Pin

pinthrift OP
200 posts
 

Thanks, viridian and nonoise ...

Your feedback has spurred my thinking.  Having grown-up around live music, the improvement of even tiny increments in that direction, for me, loom large.  Through the tunnel-vision of my logic, I've assumed those differences matter greatly to others as well.  With a moderate audio budget, I easily justify expensive plugs and outlets, which may indeed horrify the practicality of another.  My process is gathering the best possible system for my room, then rolling up my sleeves.  It becomes an emotional process, incremental gains, always moving towards more musicality and truth of timbre, things sounding as they do in life, in a real space, never boring.   As veridian succinctly put it, "Audio is a big tent, with room for all of us."

More Peace, Pin

More to discover